Introductions:Tessa Kendall gave a brief talk on the current work of the National Secular Society before Tracy King introduced Rebecca Watson who lead the panel in an opening introduction outlining the contributions made by each of the panel.

Opening discussionRebecca led the discussion on how to promote skeptical content to a wider audience

Question 1: Negative repercussionsDoes the panel ever worry that their work in scepticism and wide Internet presence might have negative repercussions on their professional day jobs?

Question 2: Hate MailHave any of you made any real enemies or received any feedback from your blog that's actually frightened you?

Question 3: YouTubeObviously YouTube is a big medium for scepticism. What's your take on the bannings that have been going on?

Question 4: Getting startedIts a pretty basic question for a beginner, but other than holding bits of paper up, if you've got a blog, how do you go about getting some readers when you're just starting out?

Question 5: European forumWe definitely need something like the JREF forum but more on European topics, because if I make a comment on the JREF about homeopathy they don't even believe their are real doctors in Hungary who practice homeopathy.

Question 6: The term “Skeptic”Jonathan Ross tweeted today that he thought that the term "Skepticism", is a negative and he prefers to think of it as rational thought.

Question 7: CelebritiesMany of you, if not all of you have experienced some form of "celebrity" yourselves because of your skeptic work for example at TAM's you sign autographs.

NB These are not official TAM London video'sOfficial TAM London videos coming to the TAM London YouTube channel soon

4 comments:

I note that Tessa Kendall, when rightly berating genital mutilation, specifically singled out JUST female genital mutilation.As this was a consciously active distinction, can I assume that she thinks that male infant genital mutilation, (which is by far and away more ubiquitous), is somehow acceptable?To say that this apparent CLEAR acceptance of, and acquiescence to, the crime of male infant genital mutilation on her behalf "coloured" my view of her subsequent comments, would be an understatement of epic proportions.

Male circumcision is no way acceptable but FGM is a far more taboo subject, often ignored, excused as a 'cultural' practise and still practised in secret in countries where it is illegal. I singled it out because more people need to know about it - pretty much everyone knows about the male version.

However, rest assured that the NSS and the Secular Medical Forum oppose male circumcision for religious reasons and I am attending a conference on it next month.

@TK:I thank you for your response.I now am pretty sure that I understand the reason for your specific exclusivity on the subject of non-consensual genital mutilation (NCGM).Do you have access to a reliable statistic on the ratio of female/male NCGM in say, the past decade, worldwide?I do not, but would be surprised if it rose much above 0.01%.With nearly every male in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic 'cultures' undergoing (infant!) NCGM, this outrageous religious crime must rank as the most widespread, longest-lasting and excused obscenities that it surely deserves at least a mention in EVERY primer to religious iniquities foisted on the human race?

I understand your concept of uncovering taboos, but I think that worse than taboos are religious atrocities that have been rendered so commonplace as to be the invisible 'elephant in the room'. We are talking about the mass mutilation of neonates: babies!!What could be more obscene than that?